Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Chicago Cubs right-hander Ryan Dempster does not want to be traded to the Atlanta Braves, according to major-league sources.

At least not right now.

Dempster, as a player with 10 years of major-league service, the last five with the same team, has the right to block a trade to the Braves.

The pitcher instead wants to be sent to the Los Angeles Dodgers, who were unable to reach agreement with the Cubs on a suitable deal, sources said.

Dempster, 35, had indicated that the Dodgers were his first choice and the Braves were his second. With the non-waiver deadline still a week away, there is still time for the Cubs and Dodgers to negotiate a suitable trade. The Dodgers remain interested in Dempster, but their talks with the Cubs reached a stalemate, sources said.

The Braves and Cubs reached agreement Monday on a trade that would send Dempster to Atlanta, reportedly for right-hander Randall Delgado.

No deal, however, can be completed without Dempster’s approval. Later on Monday, Dempster said on his Twitter account that there was no trade.

The problem for Dempster is that the Braves apparently made a better offer for him than the Dodgers, and that the Dodgers also are trying to trade for other starting pitchers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I'm sorry - but that's not a "good guy" - that's a liar. It may be a liar that's just looking out for his own self-interests, but it still makes him a liar.

Even if everything that's been reported is true, and Dempster is being a jerk about this (which indeed seems pretty likely), I still don't agree that either the front office or the fans should react by directing petty spite his way. It's just not the way to treat people - it's unprofessional for the front office to do it and classless of the fans.

Robbie Grossman reportedly involved. If that's the case, then I really like this for Houston.

I think Houston has done really well for itself rebuilding the farm - I've liked all the deals the new regime has made and while I think they still lack a lot of blue chip talent, they've accumulated an absolute ton of interesting lottery tickets, useful future pieces, etc.

Grossman is a B/B- outfield prospect. Rudy Owens is one of several Zach Duke clones the Pirates have had parked at Indianapolis, a finesse lefty and more or less major-league ready fifth starter (which I guess might make him the Disastros' staff ace right away). Colton Cain is a standard-issue A-ball arm.

How good this trade is for Houston depends on how much of Wandy's contract they're eating, I think. If they're eating a large chunk of it I don't think it's a great trade for them.

Not sure I love it for the Pirates, either, as Grossman is a guy they're pretty likely to miss in a couple years.

Rudy Owens dates to the pre-Coonnelly era. I feel like he's been at Indianapolis since John Van Benschoten was there. He's 24 and his stats are about 50 times better than they were last year, so this is either a good job of selling high or a good job of buying low.

Do you know what would be great? Cubs trade Paul Maholm to the Pirates.

I submitted a thread about it an hour and a half ago. When it gets posted, now, that's anybody's guess.

Oh, also, Ryan Roberts goes from one 1998 expansion team to the other one, in exchange for 2B prospect Tyler Bortnick, who just turned 25 and is currently hitting .253/.352/.385 with the Montgomery Biscuits.

On the one hand, the Illustrated Man is hitting terribly this year. On the other hand, he plays 2B and 3B and the Rays are filling those positions with Will Rhymes and Sean Rodriguez.

Its funny when a guy who wasn't a basestealing fiend in college turns into one in pro ball. It isn't like Coastal was anti-basestealing, they let Scott Woodward and current minor league basestealing monster Rico Noel run at will, but Bortnick didn't run all that much and wasn't especially good when he did run, but he has now stolen 66 bases in 73 tries in the last season and a half as a pro.

How did Coastal Carolina get to be such a good baseball program? They had more draft picks in 2007-2011 than in the 1980s and 1990s combined. On the other hand, time will tell if any of their recent products have as much career success as Coastal legend Kirt Manwaring.

How did Coastal Carolina get to be such a good baseball program? They had more draft picks in 2007-2011 than in the 1980s and 1990s combined. On the other hand, time will tell if any of their recent products have as much career success as Coastal legend Kirt Manwaring.

Good Q, the school itself put an emphasis on athletics starting in the mid-2000s, probably in part to give themselves an identity and brand after their messy split with the U of South Carolina system. They didn't have a football program til 2003, and yet their first two football recruiting classes featured five future NFL players (!!!). Overall they have 7 NFL players in an 8 year history as a I-AA/FCS football program, pretty nuts.

As for baseball, they have recruited well nationally but I'm not exactly sure how. You'd think a public school in SC would focus on picking up the ample talent that SEC and ACC schools didn't recruit from GA, FL, NC, SC, DC and the Tidewater but, while Coastal has drawn good players from their local area, many of their stars have been from farther off regions like Indiana, Oklahoma and more northern spots on the eastern seaboard. Coastal has also been successful at getting quality D-I transfers. I bet it don't hurt to sell kids on the appeal of playing baseball near Myrtle Beach.

They've developed arms well and supplemented that a good mix of college masher types and speedy scrappers. Good coaching.

If the Cubs want to ship him anywhere, then they ought to tell him that before it's on mlb.com. If following that rather simple protocl isn't a concern for the other parties, then I don't see why he has some obligation to waive his right to make their lives either That other players have allowed themselves to get pressured by fans and media into waiving their no-trade rights through this bassackward system is no reason why Dempster should play along.

Exactly - In what way is Dempster being the 'bad' guy here? Even if he said Atlanta was his #2 choice, the team had no right to just assume he hadn't changed his mind without talking to him first.

And didn't Roy Oswalt try to manipulate the Astros to get where he wanted to go, before finally agreeing to go to Philadelphia? I think he was just short of 5-10 status at the time, but maybe he had some limited no trade clause.

Oh, also, Ryan Roberts goes from one 1998 expansion team to the other one, in exchange for 2B prospect Tyler Bortnick, who just turned 25 and is currently hitting .253/.352/.385 with the Montgomery Biscuits.

On the one hand, the Illustrated Man is hitting terribly this year. On the other hand, he plays 2B and 3B and the Rays are filling those positions with Will Rhymes and Sean Rodriguez.

I see you Internet dweebs are just too ####### dumb to grasp Towers brilliant "Sell Low and Buy Some Random Non Prospect While Really ####### High" strategy.

And Tyler may be old for hs league and not posses any of those super shiny "statistics" you nerds are so in love with that you should just marry them. But what you kids cant appreciate is that Tyler is a veteran, he's experienced, and Kevin Towers knows the value of experienced veterans. They know how to play the game, get to the bus on time, dress in the proper home or road jersey, how to hold a bat properly during team pictures, and how to oil the starters glove for him while hes batting. All that crap Upton still hasn't learned.

So you will have to excuse me, I have to go and don't have time to hand out all the wedgies you pocket protector wearing, glasses taped together, moms basement dwelling NERDDDDSSSS!!!!! really deserve.

Kevin just called, and wants to smoke a few more bowls with me before finalizing the Upton for Delmon Young swap.

The new report is that the Cubs are negotiating with the Dodgers for a package centered around Allen Webster. I sure hope there are some interesting secondary pieces. It's also too bad Eovaldi got moved, I thought he was a pretty interesting mid level prospect.

The new report is that the Cubs are negotiating with the Dodgers for a package centered around Allen Webster. I sure hope there are some interesting secondary pieces. It's also too bad Eovaldi got moved, I thought he was a pretty interesting mid level prospect.

At least Gould as well... I think I'd also want something like Joc Pederson, too or maybe something like Gorman Erickson. In fact, with Hanley now a Dodger -- might as well ask for Castellanos, too, and let him man 3B for the rest of the year.

Nothing in the Dodgers system outside of Lee looks like a front-end starter -- both Webster and Gould are mid-rotation arms at best. In fact, there's really not much of anything in the Dodgers system that excites me from a prospect perspective. Alfredo Silverio is toolsy, but toolsy OFers that have no idea of the strikezone are a dime a dozen (he's not that toolsy). The only bat in the Dodgers system that I really like is Castellanos and he's already 25.

I have confidence that Thed can get a better deal than the flotsam joke of a haul that Hendry got for Lilly -- but especially if Lee is a no go, there's just not much on LA's farm that makes for a very exciting package.

This would have to be an Astros style "quantity" trade -- a couple lottery tickets and a couple more solid citizens who aren't at all likely to be worth hanging onto very deep into arbitration.

Although I suppose we shouldn't be too shocked. Dempster's merely taken his own fate in his hands and forced the Cubs to trade him to the team he'd rather play on.

Well, we can't save the 6 million - but I'd be damned if I let the friggin' Dodgers get a discount out of this. If the package isn't significant -- and like I said, given there's not a lot exciting in the Dodgers system, a reasonable package probably need to run 3 or 4 players deep -- then screw it...

Keep pitching for a last place team going nowhere -- and I hope FA comp screws your market value this offseason... or go ahead, accept arb and we'll do this again next summer, Ryan.

What's the point of the question? No one has specifically stated Chicago did anything wrong. I said that if I'm a player with no-trade rights, I would want to make my decision on waiving them before I read on MLB.com that a deal has been made (because there is no deal until I waive them). That clearly didn't happen here.

It's possible the Cubs did everything right. But the fact is this deal was reported before Dempster had made a final decision, and he's not happy about it. And I can't blame him.

Perhaps, and I know this is farfetched, he changed his mind about Atlanta. You know, the place that he was being traded to.

But come on, though. I know he has a right to change his mind, but let's call a spade a spade here - if he led the Cubs to believe that he was willing to accept a trade when he actually wasn't, then he was acting in bad faith. The time to be really sure about it was before he gave the Cubs the go-ahead to shop him around, not after they had pursued a course of action over a several-week period on the assumption that he'd stick to his word.

Now, to be clear, I'm not on board with zonk's desire to make Dempster's life miserable or with his dark fantasies of shooting hostages. But "changing his mind" seems like a pretty douchey move at this stage of the proceedings.

But come on, though. I know he has a right to change his mind, but let's call a spade a spade here - if he led the Cubs to believe that he was willing to accept a trade when he actually wasn't, then he was acting in bad faith. The time to be really sure about it was before he gave the Cubs the go-ahead to shop him around, not after they had pursued a course of action over a several-week period on the assumption that he'd stick to his word.

Unless he was lying about his willingness to accept a trade to Atlanta, then he wasn't acting in bad faith. Either that or you don't really believe that he has a right to change his mind.

Either that or you don't really believe that he has a right to change his mind.

You're clouding the issue with your use of the word "right". Of course he has a contractual right to change his mind. But I think it's pretty dubious from a character standpoint to do so after the deal has been worked out.

Seriously, apply this logic to any other facet of life:

1) You ask a friend to do a favor. Let's say it's a big favor, that requires some substantial time and effort on your part.
2) That person hems and haws for a bit, before saying, sure, I'll do you this favor on certain conditions.
3) You agree to the conditions - you're just glad he'll help out - and go about your task on the assumption that your friend will hold up his end.
4) The time comes when you need your friend's help, and he bails. "Changed my mind, just don't want to help you out after all." You're now left in a tight spot, because you had assumed that your friend was good for his word.

Now, barring a formal contract, it's silly to say that your friend has no "right" to change his mind. But all the same, I'm guessing that your friendship with this person cools down for awhile. Because that's just not the way to act.

1) You ask a friend to do a favor. Let's say it's a big favor, that requires some substantial time and effort on your part.
2) That person hems and haws for a bit, before saying, sure, I'll do you this favor on certain conditions.
3) You agree to the conditions - you're just glad he'll help out - and go about your task on the assumption that your friend will keep to his word.
4) The time comes when you need your friend's help, and he bails. "Changed my mind, just don't want to help you out after all."

My wife has a friend like that. Pulls this stunt all the time. I have no idea why she is still friends, though she has learned not to rely on this person for anything.

You're clouding the issue with your use of the word "right". Of course he has a contractual right to change his mind. But I think it's pretty dubious from a character standpoint to do so after the deal has been worked out.

Seriously, apply this logic to any other facet of life:

1) You ask a friend to do a favor. Let's say it's a big favor, that requires some substantial time and effort on your part.
2) That person hems and haws for a bit, before saying, sure, I'll do you this favor on certain conditions.
3) You agree to the conditions - you're just glad he'll help out - and go about your task on the assumption that your friend will hold up his end.
4) The time comes when you need your friend's help, and he bails. "Changed my mind, just don't want to help you out after all." You're now left in a tight spot, because you had assumed that your friend was good for his word.

Now, barring a formal contract, it's silly to say that your friend has no "right" to change his mind. But all the same, I'm guessing that your friendship with this person cools down for awhile. Because that's just not the way to act.

Is this just one way? If the Dodgers called and suddenly offered more for Dempster than the Braves were willing to, would the Cubs be beholden to the Braves because of all the hard work that Frank Wren had done?

I guess I just look at this differently. To me, this isn't a case of two parties agreeing to a deal. If a player has a no-trade, then there must be three parties that agree to it before you have a deal. Dempster's OK (his final one, not the sure, I'm open to going to Atlanta comment) is just as important as the Cubs' and Braves'. And if he decides to change his mind at the last minute and thus meaning Theo's done a lot of work for nothing (and let's face it, his pursuit of Pony deals ought to make him used to that by now), I really don't have a problem with that. GMing involves an awful lot of fruitless talking.

The situation we have now is comparable to seeing a report that the Red Sox have agreed to get Josh Johnson from the Marlins in exchange for Nick Punto, they're just waiting for the Marlins to agree to it. Getting the player with a no-trade to sign off on a deal isn't some minor hurdle, but should be considered equal to the teams' involvement. That isn't the case.

And the player has a right to change his mind. Maybe the idea of going to LA got his hopes up to the point where Atlanta wasn't attractive anymore. That's his right. Just as the teams have a right to back out of a deal that they've been working on if a more attractive opportunity comes along.

Say Frank Wren, after acquiring Dempster, calls Florida to see if they're interested in Jair Jurrgens to pick up some of the innings from the departed Sanchez and Johnson (lost in the Punto deal). All the Braves want in return is a pastrami sandwich. Mike Hill tells him that he'll give it some thought, though Loria usually balks at paying a high price like that and he'll get back to him with a counteroffer. In the meantime, Dayton Moore calls Wren and says that his rotation isn't Bravey enough, and could he possibly get Jurrgens for the price of this Moustakos kid, "cause you know how much Glass hates the Greeks." No one would fault Wren for changing his mind, and taking Moose Tacos off the Royals' hands.

So if Frank Wren can change his mind, then Ryan Dempster ought to be able to do it also without drawing the wrath of the zonks of the world.

If a player has a no-trade, then there must be three parties that agree to it before you have a deal. Dempster's OK (his final one, not the sure, I'm open to going to Atlanta comment) is just as important as the Cubs' and Braves'.

But they aren't all three negotiating with each other. The Cubs are agreeing separately with Dempster and with the Braves. And they have to get one of those to agree first and then assume that that agreement holds up.

The situation we have now is comparable to seeing a report that the Red Sox have agreed to get Josh Johnson from the Marlins in exchange for Nick Punto, they're just waiting for the Marlins to agree to it. Getting the player with a no-trade to sign off on a deal isn't some minor hurdle, but should be considered equal to the teams' involvement. That isn't the case.

I haven't seen any reporting that this wasn't the case. By all accounts, including apparently Dempster's, the Cubs have kept him in the loop as much as possible. Leaks are leaks, we don't know where they came from and they might not even be in anyone's power to prevent (they might not have even come from one of the two teams involved), they're part of the process this time of year, and if that's Dempster's primary complaint here, I'd say that he simply needs to grow up.

Say Frank Wren, after acquiring Dempster, calls Florida to see if they're interested in Jair Jurrgens to pick up some of the innings from the departed Sanchez and Johnson (lost in the Punto deal). All the Braves want in return is a pastrami sandwich. Mike Hill tells him that he'll give it some thought, though Loria usually balks at paying a high price like that and he'll get back to him with a counteroffer. In the meantime, Dayton Moore calls Wren and says that his rotation isn't Bravey enough, and could he possibly get Jurrgens for the price of this Moustakos kid, "cause you know how much Glass hates the Greeks." No one would fault Wren for changing his mind, and taking Moose Tacos off the Royals' hands.

I would say that the distinction here is that circumstances materially changed. In my example above, I'd be more inclined to be forgiving of the friend if he got called in to work at the last second or something else came up that made his cooperation infeasible for him. Things happen.

If a player has a no-trade, then there must be three parties that agree to it before you have a deal. Dempster's OK (his final one, not the sure, I'm open to going to Atlanta comment) is just as important as the Cubs' and Braves'.

But they aren't all three negotiating with each other. The Cubs are agreeing separately with Dempster and with the Braves. And they have to get one of those to agree first and then assume that that agreement holds up.

What none of really know is, what is usual and customary in this situation. Is it enough to get a general agreement from a player to accept a trade to a certain team, or does the trading team have to come to him every time a specific trade is proposed?

I haven't seen any reporting that this wasn't the case. By all accounts, including apparently Dempster's, the Cubs have kept him in the loop as much as possible. Leaks are leaks, we don't know where they came from and they might not even be in anyone's power to prevent (they might not have even come from one of the two teams involved), they're part of the process this time of year, and if that's Dempster's primary complaint here, I'd say that he simply needs to grow up.

I haven't seen enough to really determine exactly how up to date he was. Even the quote mentioned above is kind of sketchy, because he doesn't directly answer the question asked of him.

I would say that the distinction here is that circumstances materially changed. In my example above, I'd be more inclined to be forgiving of the friend if he got called in to work at the last second or something else came up that made his cooperation infeasible for him. Things happen.

And I'd say materially changed is in the eye of the beholder. It's possible that reading about the done deal before he OK'd it soured Dempster on Atlanta. Like I've said from the beginning, if I'm Dempster, I'd probably feel the exact same way. I'm pretty much a hardass on what the no-trade entails for the player, and I wouldn't take kindly to anyone treating that as if it's a formality.

I'm pretty much a hardass on what the no-trade entails for the player, and I wouldn't take kindly to anyone treating that as if it's a formality.

But once Dempster informally agrees to waive it, what's left except the formality?

I'm with you in cases where the team just starts negotiating without regard for the NTC, and then pressure the player to waive it after the deal's been reached. This is what the Astros did to Carlos Lee, right? And it served them right when he turned it down. Maybe I have my facts wrong wrt that deal, but regardless, the principle holds.

But, again, by all accounts, that's just not what the Cubs did here. They were open about their intentions, they approached Dempster personally before the process got started, they got his informal permission, and they negotiatied along the terms of what Dempster asked for. How that can be characterized as "treating it as if it's a formality" is beyond me.

But, again, by all accounts, that's just not what the Cubs did here. They were open about their intentions, they approached Dempster personally before the process got started, they got his informal permission, and they negotiatied along the terms of what Dempster asked for. How that can be characterized as "treating it as if it's a formality" is beyond me.

To me, if I read about a done deal on mlb.com before I sign off on said deal, then my approval is being treated as a formality. That "leaks happen" is not my concern. Like I said, I'd be a hardass here.

So if Frank Wren can change his mind, then Ryan Dempster ought to be able to do it also without drawing the wrath of the zonks of the world.

My understanding of MLB's custom is that trade offers are given with an expiration time/date. So, yes, it seems that teams generally do not change their mind on these things out of respect for other teams and to facilitate the process itself.

Obviously, Ryan is operating under different circumstances but I think it is incorrect to say baseball teams screw each other over willy-nilly and that Dempster (assuming he actually did indicate a willingness to go to Atlanta) changing his mind is the same thing.

Well, I guess that's where we disagree. I don't think your hardassery is any more sensible than zonk's hardassery on the other end of the spectrum, and "being a hardass" is not really a defense of any kind of merit on its own terms.

Well, I guess that's where we disagree. I don't think your hardassery is any more sensible than zonk's hardassery on the other end of the spectrum, and "being a hardass" is not really a defense of any kind of merit on its own terms.

Oh come on, I'm not being that ridiculous. I just think Ryan Dempster has, by virtue of rules both parties agreed to, the right to a voice in where he's going to work over the next two months. And if he wants to exercise that right, including having a change of heart that inconveniences Theo, I'm OK with that. If Ryan Dempster had asked for a trade, and then done this, I'd be more inclined to agree that he'd been acting in bad faith. But here, nah.

Dempster must really enjoy his pile of quality start losses. As I've said elsewhere, I understand where he's coming from (sort of), but way to back your team into a corner with regards to moving you, something he's been allegedly OK with since this sort of talk bubbled up.

While the situations aren't analogous of course, I'd like to think I've recently been through couple of similar circumstances in my own professional life... Tell me whether you think Ryan Dempster fits more as person A or person B based on his PUBLIC statements, even if you want to disbelieve all of the "sourced" reporting that concurs with Dempster's PUBLIC statements.

I work for a very large mulitnational -- we have multiple US divisions alone. I manage a group of about 10. While it's not the same as a team-player relationship with a CBA -- it's inevitable that there's a lot of transfer of folks across divisions. We have protocols in place for this - and we also have some protocols for employees (for example, positions of a certain grade must be posted internally first... people of certain seniority must be interviewed for open spots internally if their department is cut, etc).

Person A reported to me -- ironically, I'd say he's a lot like Dempster... Not one of my superstars (ala a Greinke), but a solid, upper 25% performer. He was approached by a manager in another division -- this is a no-no, as that manager's open spot hadn't yet been posted and in such a circumstance, said manager is supposed to first alert the current manager. Anyway, Person A actually told me of being approached the very day he was approached. I told him I appreciated the heads up, that it would have zero impact on his standing with me, and knowing it was a career advancement move - suggested that he would be wise to explore it to the fullest even if he wasn't looking to leave. Throughout the process, he was honest, open and ultimately he got offered the spot. He was torn - saying point blank that if I could even come within the salary ballpark - he'd rather stay. I told him I knew I couldn't match it and while I might be able to work something out, intra-company salary negotiations generally go nowhere. Knowing he and his wife were expecting their first child, I told him that as much as I hated to lose him - I thought that professionally it was too good of an opportunity to pass up. He took the job - but based on his honesty and professionalism handling the situation, if things didn't work out - I'd find a way to take him back.

Person B was in revere -- applied for a spot I posted. Promising candidate - first choice based on internal interviews. Extended an offer, he was receptive, wanted the night to "think it over". Following protocol, I HAD informed his then-current manager that he had applied and then also in advance of extending the offer. Well.... found out later --- as did his manager --- that he had basically been using the application solely for purposes of salary negotiation. Yeah - he "changed his mind", too...

No one is denying Dempster his 10/5 rights. But - he said he was "open" to a trade. By all accounts, he had provided a list of destinations he would accept. By multiple reports, the Braves were high on this list.

It's a two-way street -- if LA is the only place he'd go, then he should have said so. If it was doubtful, but he was willing to talk about it - he should have said that.

There's honesty and there's dishonesty - the lines may blur, but I don't see blurred lines here. I see Dempster at MINIMUM being dishonest in his public statements, if not also in his private statements.

There's honesty and there's dishonesty - the lines may blur, but I don't see blurred lines here. I see Dempster at MINIMUM being dishonest in his public statements, if not also in his private statements.

Everyone in the thread disagrees with my approach to the fallout - i.e., the spite driven reaction... which is fine, it's laced with a healthy dose of hyperbole anyway.

But I don't see how anyone can say that Dempster handled this especially well... That's NOT saying that his public statements ought to disqualify him from changing his mind -- but he did screw over the Cubs but good by:

1) Making MULTIPLE public statements saying that he would be willing to go to a contender.

2) If you want to believe the reporting (and I see no reason to doubt it because it all jibes together AND is inline with his PUBLIC statements), including the Braves as both ON and HIGH UP that list of acceptable destinations.

Now - he's hung the Cubs out to dry... They're boxed into a corner negotiating with the Dodgers - and hell, the Dodgers might very well say at this point "What if he changes his mind again."

Let me ask you this:

If the Cubs had a NON-CONTRACTUAL 'gentlemen's agreement' with Dempster NOT to offer arbitration, thus giving him a bit more FA value -- are you ALSO OK with the Cubs 'changing their mind?'

Dempster the good guy threw a hissy fit when he got pulled today, Zambrano'ing a water cooler in the dugout.

I guess he can't make up his mind as to whether he's a cool, calm professional or an irrational hothead either. Presumably, his next paycheck will include the deduction for replacing the watercooler -- or at least, I'd tell him it will... then when he changes his mind again and demands a trade, we can tell him "too bad - the deals have evaporated".

I don't think offering arbitration makes any difference in his FA value anymore, as per the new CBA signing teams don't forfeit first rounders anymore.

I think they have to make a 'qualifying offer' - but I think you're right, it's just a sandwich pick.

Still - I'd be interested in hearing the answer to the now hypothetical question... Barring a contractual stipulation, would it be just as OK for the Cubs to change their mind over a gentlemen's agreement not to offer a contract -- can they just 'change their mind' too?

Still - I'd be interested in hearing the answer to the now hypothetical question... Barring a contractual stipulation, would it be just as OK for the Cubs to change their mind over a gentlemen's agreement not to offer a contract -- can they just 'change their mind' too?

It depends. Were they just offering it to him as a favor, as Dempster was doing for them, or was it in exchange for something else? If it's the latter, then no, that wouldn't be OK. If it's the former, maybe, depending on the circumstances.

Now - he's hung the Cubs out to dry... They're boxed into a corner negotiating with the Dodgers - and hell, the Dodgers might very well say at this point "What if he changes his mind again."

Then he pitches for the Cubs. The team that willingly signed him to a contract for that very purpose, and who would not even have a chance to rid themselves of him if he hadn't agreed to the possibility of waiving an earned provision of that contract for no compensation.

``In his case, from my understanding – and I’m only getting it second hand from the Cubs – they had a meeting with him a couple weeks ago and laid it out, and the primary two suitors were use and theDodgers. And he had positive things to say about both, and he had a slight preference to the Dodgers because of Ted Lilly. He and Ted Lilly are best of friends and he’d like to go play with his friend. And I think there were also some personal issues that suited better for him. And as it went down, from my understanding, the Cubs informed him in the last week that the Dodgers weren’t really as aggressive as we were and they thought the deal was going to go with us. I think he was given a heads up along the way. I think it may be the way it was presented as far as coming out in the media [Monday]. I think that was blindsiding, not that he necessarily didn’t know this was coming down.’’

Dempster's statement --

"Yeah, they told me there was interest," he replied. "They've been really good about (updating me)."

Well, I hope Frank Wren reads this board and others, and decides that maybe the loss of Randall Delgado is not worth an angry Dempster. Given the theme of mid-course corrections that are within the rights of the parties, I hope he dials up the Cubs and says "No thanks; we rescind our offer."

Some team.will jump in at random.when a starter goes down this weekend.

It's not a question of a team being interested in Dempster; it's a question of whether Dempster would be willing to play there. There were reports that Atlanta was his 2nd choice and he already rejected a trade there.

Unfair or not, I suspect Dempster has incinerated a lot of the goodwill he's built up with the Cubs fanbase since 2004 in a matter of a few days. He's earned the right to squash any trade involving him, but he's got some egg on his face. He's responded to these trade talks all year with an implication that he wouldn't oppose a trade to a contender. And when push came to shove, he blocked one trade and wiped out the leverage the Cubs may have had with another potential trade.

He should have just said from the start, "I'll only accept a trade to the Dodgers." People would have dumped on him for it most likely, but better that than to look like a flip-flopper. He's pretty much sabotaged the Cubs' best opportunity to stock up on the farm via in-season trade.

BTW - read a report yesterday on rotoworld that one team has actually contacted the Cubs about what the parameters would be for a potential Soriano deal. Given that the Cubs would pay a ton of freight, I'm a bit surprised there isn't more interest. It's almost August and Soriano is still hitting 274/323/503 (OPS+ 122) and he's also 5th or 6th in the NL in HRs, despite not hitting his first until what... May? If the Cubs are picking up so much of his contract that he's a budget-pain free cut next year or the year after when the dead cat bounce passes, why not? Who's a better available bat at this point if you really just need a thumper?

I'm late to the thread, but I'm with Zonk on this one. All evidence points to TheoJed being entirely upfront with Dempster and negotiating with Atl with the understanding that Dempster was willing to go there. If Dempster is upset that it leaked out, well, #### him. TheoJed has been admirably silent on the issue, and for Dempster to spitefully punish the Cubs because the Braves leaked the trade is just assholery in the extreme. I will be at Monday's game and likely Tuesday's. Whichever game he pitches, I plan to boo him lustily. He may have earned the right to refuse a trade with his 10 and 5 service. Well I've earned the right to boo his lying, selfish ass with my 20 years of season tickets.

Thanks for intentionally misunderstanding what I wrote, McCoy. Everyone who will read my post today, including you, knows exactly why I'll be booing him. You can disagree with me, but don't assign a reason to me that you know full well is bullshit.

Thanks for intentionally misunderstanding what I wrote, McCoy. Everyone who will read my post today, including you, knows exactly why I'll be booing him. You can disagree with me, but don't assign a reason to me that you know full well is ########.

Yes, you're booing the best pitcher in the league because he didn't want to go to Atlanta and thus the Cubs didn't get a crappier pitcher in exchange and Dempster will be starting for us. Kudos.

In any case, you're arguing against a strawman; nobody's questioning Dempster's right to exercise his 10-and-5 rights. But what appears to have happened is that notwithstanding his 10-and-5 rights, Dempster led the Cubs to believe that he'd accept a trade--specifically, a trade to the team the Cubs were prepared to trade him to, for a good return, and didn't give reason to think that was no longer the case until the thing was all but finalized. That doesn't strike you as assholish (his contractual right to do it notwithstanding)?

He rejected the trade. Formally, it might have been a "pocket veto" type rejection, but the end is the same.
Yes, SoSH, you are entirely correct. You have the right to call me a petulant entitled #######, and much of the time you really would not be that far from correct.
Still, it's not the refusing the trade that is so galling. It's setting yourself up as the good guy, leading the team to believe you're willing to go to Atlanta, and than changing your mind in mid-stream. And then he twisted the knife even further by saying he would only go to LA, thus eliminating any chance for the Cubs to get a halfway decent prospect. Just be honest from the get-go, and don't intentionally sabotage what the new management is trying to do. Is that so much for my petulent, entitled ass to hope for?

In any case, you're arguing against a strawman; nobody's questioning Dempster's right to exercise his 10-and-5 rights. But what appears to have happened is that notwithstanding his 10-and-5 rights, Dempster led the Cubs to believe that he'd accept a trade--specifically, a trade to the team the Cubs were prepared to trade him to, for a good return, and didn't give reason to think that was no longer the case until the thing was all but finalized. That doesn't strike you as assholish (his "right to do it" notwithstanding)?

No, not really. Could he have handled it better? Sure, that's probably true to an extent. But it's Ryan Dempster's life, and through his own skill and some hard-won rights, he has the rare opportunity to have some say in where he plays for the next 60 days. And if he wants to change his mind about a destination, for whatever reason, or he just wants a little more time to ponder this significant change that affects him far more meaningfully than it does you, or zonk or Theo, no that's not being an #######.

Because Ryan Dempster has the temerity of not thinking what's in the best interests of the Cubs when they're telling him his services are no longer required?

Just curious: Did Dempster ever reject the trade, or did the Braves pull the offer before he made up his mind?

And just as Dempster has the right to reject a trade and you have the right to boo him, I do have the right to say those of you who are booing him are being petulant, entitled ########, correct?

Hard for me to see how fans of a team working on title-less century 2, in the midst of the third straight 70some win season could be called "entitled" -- but let me explain...

There are many players I like. There are many players I root for. However, at the heart of it - I'm a fan of the team. When push comes to shove, my interests as a fan of a team trump my interests as a fan of an individual player. 36 yo Ryan Dempster being swapped for a 22 yo well-thought-of prospect are in the best interest of the team for which I cheer.

I understand Ryan Dempster is a person, a person with feelings, and a person with contractual rights that allow him some manner of control regarding situations impacting those feelings. However, there are how many billions of people on this planet? They also have feelings.

Ryan Dempster works in a job that is wholly and entirely based on entertaining the paying customers. It doesn't matter if he turns into Walter Johnson over night, if we wake up tomorrow and the world suddenly decides that no one anywhere wants to watch baseball again (or at least, pay to watch baseball again) - he won't be working at that job for long -- no one else will, either.

This isn't some mouthbreathing WSCR call-in comment -- it's pure and simple logic... The state of Cubs right now is such that a prospect is extraordinarily more valuable to the team's future than is last-year-of-his-contract 36 yo Ryan Dempster. What Ryan Dempster wants is no different in this transaction than an employee of my bank trying to convince me to take a mortgage, buy a CD, or open a new charge card, a waiter hoping I'll order an appetizer to increase the check (and his tip), or an advertiser hoping a TV spot convinces me to buy a product.

Where our interests intersect, we'll be copacetic.

Where they don't, their "feelings" are not of abundant concern to me.

The rancor here -- given that Dempster's public statements are apparently no longer operable -- are akin to the banker hiding fees in fine print, the waiter double-charging me for a cocktail, or the company billing me for a free trial of whatever.

"I knew about the rumor," Dempster said Tuesday. "I just didn't agree to any of it."

I don't get how this keeps getting glossed over. It seems to me that the basic premise of the anti-Dempster argument -- ie, he agreed to be traded to Atlanta and then changed his mind -- is basically false. He is not contractually obligated to agree to a trade before the teams have a deal, and he clearly is saying that he never did agree to accept a trade to Atlanta. Saying that he would consider accepting a trade to a contender, specifically Los Angeles or Atlanta, is not the same thing as agreeing to accept a trade to either Los Angeles or Atlanta. And I suspect that Theo and Frank knew this when they were negotiating with each other.